HC Deb 21 January 1991 vol 184 cc114-38 10.20 pm
Sir Marcus Fox (Shipley)

On behalf of the Committee of Selection, I beg to move, That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Browne, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Porter and Mr. David Shaw be members of the Social Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker

With this, we may take the motion relating to the Health Committee: That Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Alice Mahon, Sir David Price, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee. As the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is beyond the scope of the two motions, I have not selected it.[Interruption.]

Will those hon. Members who are not remaining for this debate please leave quietly?

Sir Marcus Fox

I am well aware that the tactics being indulged in by the Liberal Democrats, or the Scottish Liberal Democrats—I hardly dare call this an amendment —are intended to prevent these very important Committees from being set up. I wish that those hon. Members had chosen something more appropriate on which to take a stand of this kind. Following the decision to split the huge Department of Health and Social Security into two Departments, it was natural that there should be two Select Committees. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said during the Christmas Adjournment debate: A new Committee is to be set up and as a member of that Committee I must express my deep sense of frustration that the new Select Committee has been prevented from functioning by the blocking actions of some Scottish Liberals whose names are on the Order Paper. I understand that they feel strongly about the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and that that has been an ongoing quarrel between them and the Government … I object strongly when that quarrel leads to the frustration of two other Select Committees, both of which are charged to oversee the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society."—[Official Report, 19 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 332.] I am sure that my hon. Friend was right.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection for giving way to a fellow member of the Committee. He is underlining the frustration of prospective members of the Health Committee at being delayed for just two months. How does he think Scottish Members feel at having been held up for all of this Parliament?

Sir Marcus Fox

As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee of Selection, I thought that he might have become more impassioned during the various meetings of that Committee. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are now in the fourth year of this Parliament. It is somewhat surprising to me that, having failed to set up the Committee in the past two years, at this late hour we should now be faced with such tactics.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Marcus Fox

Yes, I am a very reasonable guy.

Mr. Salmond

Does the Chairman of the Committee of Selection concede that if he and his Committee had done their job properly, we would not be here tonight?

Sir Marcus Fox

If the hon. Gentleman will bide his time I intend to cover briefly the history of why it was impossible to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could curtail that particular discussion by pointing out that there is not one single Conservative Member representing Scotland sitting on the Benches tonight and that the failure of those Conservative Members to take up their posts on the Scottish Select Committee is the problem we face.

Sir Marcus Fox

I am the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am not in the Whips Office and I have no control over the attendance of hon. Members. I should have thought that the absence of Conservative Members from Scotland was proof that none of them was willing to serve on that Select Committee [Interruption.] I see that the most distinguished of my Scottish colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is now present. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has found a volunteer and we shall have some success in establishing the Select Committee in the future.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Why not ask him?

Sir Marcus Fox

It is my intention to listen carefully to the debate. If a glint of new hope emerges that the Scottish Select Committee can be set up, I shall take careful note.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

I intervene as an English Member of Parliament, despite the accent, and as a former member of the previous Select Committee on Social Services. I have a great deal of sympathy with Scottish Opposition Members. I know of the negotiations that have taken place to divide the former Select Committee into the Select Committee on Social Security and the Select Committee on Health. If half of that energy had been put into establishing the Scottish Select Committee, we would be here acknowledging that that Select Committee should be set up. This is not just a Scottish issue but a House of Commons issue. The failure to set up the Scottish Select Committee is frustrating the will of the House, and that failure is based upon party political advantage as perceived by Conservative Members.

Sir Marcus Fox

Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to be able to set up all 14 Select Committees. It is a failure on the part of my Committee that we were unable to set up the Scottish Select Committee. However, Opposition Members should read carefully the three debates that we have had on this matter. They will then realise that that failure is not due to lack of effort on our part. I am Chairman of the Committee of Selection, which consists of Members from all parts of the House. None of them has failed to support me during our previous debates. Obviously hon. Members' memories are failing them.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if and when a Select Committee on Health is established, should that be the will of the House, it will be free to discuss Scottish issues?

Sir Marcus Fox

I note that there is a big if, and I should rather finish my speech before—

Sir David Price (Eastleigh)

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The former Select Committee on Social Services never felt the least inhibited from going anywhere within the United Kingdom. We went to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and I have no doubt that the two new Committees will do precisely the same.

Sir Marcus Fox

Indeed, and if the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) looks carefully at the work of the various Select Committees, he will see that many of them have looked at Scottish matters. The fact that there has been no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not stopped matters affecting Scotland being discussed by Select Committees. The record shows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish.") Hon. Members will not have a chance to speak, if they carry on intervening.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

The hon. Gentleman says that Scottish affairs have not missed out as a result of the failure of the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. How can he say that, when we have not had the facility to scrutinise and call into question Government policy on health, social security, fishing, steel and a whole variety of matters that directly affect the daily lives of the people of Scotland? Surely he must accept that the House has failed to supply us with that particular opportunity.

Sir Marcus Fox

Scottish Members have not been backward in pushing forward subjects that they want discussed in various Select Committees. It is within my recollection that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into Ravenscraig and such issues. Naturally, I understand that had there been a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Scottish Members would have had another forum to look into these matters. The Scottish Grand Committee still exists and other Committees look at matters which affect Scotland.

After the 1987 election it took six months to set up the 13 departmental Committees. It was not the first time that there had been delays. There are delays after every general election.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Not four years.

Sir Marcus Fox

We had the first debate on 2 December 1987 and two subsequent debates. Delay followed delay. During the long, protracted discussions between the usual channels, there was much toing and froing. If only agreement had been reached earlier, the Committee could have been set up. Initially, there were objections to the Government having a majority on the Committee. It took a while before the size of the Committee was reduced from 13 to nine to allow the Government to have the majority. When Tory names were suggested, Opposition Members felt that no English Members should be allowed to make up numbers which, again, caused delays. When that principle was accepted, it was too late in the day.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

The hon. Gentleman is misdirecting himself. From the beginning we made it clear that we would not stand on any narrow interpretation of the rules. We made it clear in writing at the request of the then Leader of the House, who is now the Secretary of State for Energy, that we would accept any Member from any part of the United Kingdom. The only qualification was that such a Member should have a genuine interest in the affairs of Scotland and wish to see proper scrutiny of Government business. We also made it clear from the beginning that we would agree to reducing the size of the Committee from the largest to the smallest, if necessary. We have done everything we can. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in suggesting that at any time the possibility of setting up the Committee was held out to me. I have knocked at doors repeatedly and I shall continue to knock until we receive an affirmative answer.

Sir Marcus Fox

The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. He has many subjects to cover. I am the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and this matter occupies much of my time. If he refers to the Official Report of Tuesday 22 December 1988, he will see a speech from the previous Leader of the House in which he describes fully the discussions which took place. It is surprising that all this should have gone on so long, if what the hon. Gentleman says is the case. If there had been unanimity, we could have set up the Committee quickly.

Mr. Dewar

This is, to me, a matter of some importance. The Government's position has consistently been not that they offered a suggested package of reforms that was not acceptable to the Opposition, but that they could not staff the Committee: they could not persuade Scottish Conservative Members to serve, and could not get anyone from furth of Scotland to serve. That has been the position under three Leaders of the House, and I understand that it is still the position. It is entirely inaccurate, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts, to say that at some point we were offered a deal which we refused. The only ground that I can think of for such a claim is that at one point, when no Conservative Members were coming forward, we were not in a position to put up members from the Opposition, because we elect them democratically. There was a delay of one week then, when there were no Conservative volunteers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Interventions should be brief. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the debate is about the composition of the Select Committee on Social Security and Health.

Sir Marcus Fox

I stand by what was recorded in Hansard on 20 December 1988. At least the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has admitted that there was a bit of a delay. At one stage, there were five Conservative nominations. It is clear that we are not going to agree about what went on at the beginning of all this, but it is a fact that on 9 December—

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing—as well as the composition of other Select Committees—the future of the Scottish Select Committee. Why is no Scottish Minister present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate is about the composition of the Select Committees on Social Security and Health; it has nothing to do with Scotland.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I call Sir Giles Shaw.

Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it or is it not the case that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has not been selected? If it has not been selected, surely there is no room in order for discussion of the Scottish issue.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issues of health and social security are of vital importance to Scotland. Surely, given the different administrative system there, it is within the rights of Scottish Members to raise with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) how those issues will be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No, it is not in order.

Mr. Wallace

rose—

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

One at a time, please.

It is not in order to discuss in detail the hypothetical issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I now call Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Wallace

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware that, before you took the Chair, the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) set out to explain the history of the establishment of the Scottish Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, who was in the Chair, did not once bring him to order. Clearly that is the issue that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to address; as the hon. Member for Shipley has been allowed to advance his case, surely other hon. Members should be allowed to do the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind, but this must not be a debate about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; it must be a debate about the matters on the Order Paper.[Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members listen for a moment? An obligation is placed on me to ensure that the debate is kept within the confines of the motion on the Order Paper. Now let us get on.

Sir Marcus Fox

Although we all knew the reason behind the two Committees' not being set up, I thought that I should in all fairness try to explain. I may have been misunderstood, in which case I merely wish to say that we reported to the House some two years ago that we could not set up the Committee in a way that would obtain the acceptance of the House. [Interruption.] Interventions have taken me much further down that road than I wanted to go. There is no reason why the two Select Committees should not be set up. The sooner they are, the better it will be for the House and the country.

10.39 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection for introducing a matter of great importance to Opposition Members generally and to Scottish Members in all parts of the House in particular. From personal contacts and correspondence with potential members of these two huge departmental Select Committees, I know that by using this procedural device we have held up their work. That was never our intention. Our intention alwayss was to obtain a short debate on the consequences of not having a departmental Select Committee to consider Scottish affairs. Our amendment is technically out of order, but we have achieved something, since we are now holding a brief debate on the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. We are not holding a debate on that subject. We are holding a debate, I hope, on the motions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Kirkwood

I am responding to the way in which the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) introduced the two motions. I hope to deal with them in detail. I do not intend to dwell on an area of controversy, at the risk of being ruled out of order.

We never intended to thwart in any way the entirely logical and commendable step of splitting the Select Committee into two component parts—health and social security—and we never intended unduly to delay the work of those Committees. However, under Standing Order 6(2), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a duty to pay regard to the qualifications of those members who serve on the two new departmental Committees. He also has a duty under the same Standing Order to take into account the composition of the House.

Will the hon. Gentleman and the Committee of Selection now take account of the fact that no departmental Committee is considering Scottish matters? That has consequences for the qualifications of the members of new departmental Committees such as the ones that will be set up as a result of the motions. It has consequences, too, for the composition of existing Select Committees.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. We all appreciate the need for a Select Committee to consider Scottish affairs. However, either intentionally or inadvertently, he has held up the important work of both Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman says that he has already made his point. Will he therefore vote for the motion?

Mr. Kirkwood

We set out with the aim of getting this important matter considered by the House. Technically we have failed, but we have succeeded to the extent that at least the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is having to account to the House for his actions. I did not intend to delay the setting up of the two new Select Committees for more than a few weeks. The hon. Member for Shipley grabbed hold of me by the scruff of the neck and made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was worried about reports that may not wholeheartedly approve of what the Government are doing. That remains to be seen. The Chairman is bound to take account of the fact that a major departmental Select Committee has not been set up. The absence of a Scottish Select Committee is in direct contravention of Standing Orders.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a previous debate on the composition of Select Committees the then Leader of the House suggested that Select Committees could take cognisance of the Scottish dimension? As the only Scottish member of the Transport Select Committee, and as its Chairman, I am aware that that suggestion does not work and that it is neither desirable nor practical. What is sometimes important in Scotland is not of the least interest to other Select Committee members. Liberal Democrats have done the House a service by drawing attention to the matter in their amendment.

Significantly, there is no Scottish Member on the Social Security Select Committee. How will Scottish social security problems be considered? The only Scottish Member of the proposed Health Select Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Kirkwood

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have read previous debates in which the former Leader of the House made precisely that point. In addition, I have carefully read the excellent reports that the Social Services Select Committee has produced. I refer to the fifth report, "The Government's Plans for the Future of the NHS", and the eighth report, "Resourcing the National Health Service", in which only passing reference is made to the Scottish health service, which has a completely different structure and confronts different problems in treating diseases and illness.

Mr. Wallace

Will my hon. Friend confirm, having read the reports of the Social Services Select Committee, that although it took evidence from the Department of Health and Social Security and, latterly, the Department of Health on three occasions, there is no indication that it ever took oral evidence from the Scottish Office? Although Leaders of the House said that Select Committees were able to consider the Scottish dimension, they clearly failed to do so.

Mr. Kirkwood

That is true. There is a more fundamental flaw in the membership of the proposed Select Committee on Health. The Department of Health has responsibility for England and Wales but no responsibility north of the border, where the health service is governed by Scottish Office Ministers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), whose interest in and record on the health service is without equal. I have every confidence in his ability as Chairman of the proposed Select Committee on Health, but that Committee will never be able to consider the health service in Scotland, except in exceptional circumstances, which is entirely unfair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he cannot get away with his latter statement, which was inaccurate. The Select Committee on Social Services visited Scotland many times and has full authority to take evidence from whatever Minister it wishes to summon before it, including Scottish Ministers if necessary. We visited Scotland as part of our inquiries into the resourcing and structure of the health service. I congratulate Scotland on some of the excellent health care facilities that it provides. In some ways, other parts of the United Kingdom can learn from it.

Mr. Kirkwood

Perhaps I am getting carried away with my own rhetoric. I was not aware that the Social Services Select Committee had visited Scotland during an inquiry into health matters.

Mr. Winterton

It has.

Mr. Kirkwood

I stand corrected.

Sir David Price

Three of our inquiries were greatly helped by visiting Scotland: the first was on acquired immune deficiency syndrome; the second was on mental health—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks about regional differences. We were impressed with the way in which Edinburgh was handling matters. We were impressed with the way in which Fife was handling mental health and care in the community. On primary health care, we were impressed by the fact that in Scotland, unlike England, the general practitioner service is not separated from the hospital service. We benefited from those three inquiries. My understanding is that Select Committees are meant to operate on a United Kingdom basis, not a national basis.

Mr. Kirkwood

From memory, those were comparative studies. As a member of an all-party committee considering AIDS and as a Member who represents a constituency not far from Edinburgh, 1 am aware of that fact. I also acknowledge the importance of mental health provision. I again challenge the hon. Member for Eastleigh to say when he took evidence in Scotland from Scottish Office Ministers on these two major issues. As the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, the point is made.

Sir David Price

Two of our advisers on the Committee were Scottish.

Mr. Wallace

That is because all the best doctors are Scottish.

Mr. Kirkwood

As my hon. Friend says, all the best doctors are Scottish—it is impossible to avoid them.

The two new departmental Select Committees will produce reports, but the absence of a Scottish Select Committee will continue. If the Committee of Selection hopes that the next election will provide extra Conservative Members from north of the border to be prospective Committee members, it has a surprise coming to it. The Government are not using their best endeavours to address the problem. The Committee of Selection should consider the long term, having regard to the fact that it can add Members to and discharge them from departmental Select Committees.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) will confirm that the Government have never put English names forward, as he is able to do. There has never been adequate consideration of the suggestion that Scots-born English Members with an interest in health or social services north of the border should serve on a Scottish Select Committee. Although that would be very much second best, it would be acceptable. That would be a high price to pay to get a Committee going, but it has never even been attempted. That sad omission is symptomatic of the way in which the Government treat the democratic process north of the border. They show scant regard and comtempt for it.

The new departmental Select Committees will have difficulty operating north of the border. The geography and ambient temperatures in Scotland mean that severe weather payments have greater significance to the population of Scotland than they do to the English population. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and others have introduced ten-minute Bills to do something about that. Many of my constituents suffer from rural deprivation, poverty and transport problems. That all has a different Scottish legislative framework, with which the Social Security Committee will find it difficult to cope.

The new departmental Select Committee will have great difficulty with the legislative basis for the enforcement procedures that are now being used for poindings and warrant sales in connection with the community charge —a very important social services issue—because it will have no real experience and no chance of communicating with those who are coping with the problems and dealing with them satisfactorily—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Is it not extraordinary that for four years the Government have persisted in not setting up a Committee that might have helped them get out of the holes that they have dug for themselves? Is it conceivable that, had we had a Committee that could have looked into social security matters, specifically in Scotland, the Government could have introduced a tax relief in the Budget and forgotten about the implications for Scotland?

Mr. Kirkwood

My hon. Friend makes the point forcefully.

The Chairman of the Committee of Selection cannot let matters rest as they are. He has a duty, both in terms of the Standing Orders and in terms of everything that he has heard this evening, to look at the matter again and to see whether there are ways of making progress.

Let me make a suggestion. It is very much a second best, but at least it has the benefit of being technically in order in terms of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade the Government to establish a Committee that covers Scottish affairs properly, he should go out of his way to ensure that 13 extra Scots Members are added to the departmental Select Committees covering other matters. The hon. Gentleman himself made the point that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had considered the steel industry. But that was only because of the valiant efforts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others. My hon. and learned Friend happened to be a member of the Committee and took the opportunity afforded to him. It took a long time and a lot of arm-twisting to get the Select Committee to undertake that crucial inquiry, which would have been undertaken as a matter of course by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

The Chairman of the Committee of Selection says that the other departmental Select Committees can cover Scots affairs. Even if that is true, it remains the case that Scots Members are under-represented in the present composition of the Committees. It seems that we may not get a proper full-blown Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to consider the wide and unique range of public responsibilities that are undertaken by the Scottish Office in Edinburgh. That being so, the hon. Gentleman at least has a duty to look again at the composition of existing Select Committees at every stage. In future when hon. Members are being considered for, or discharged from, membership—

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

The hon. Gentleman has been suggesting that Scottish Members are not contributing to the Select Committees of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood

No.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I am saying. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we should take on board the principle that Scottish Members should be members of the United Kingdom Select Committees. Does the hon. Gentleman realise just how many Scottish Labour Members—given the circumstances of the Labour party —represent English and Welsh interests not only on the Front Bench but in the Select Committees? They do so quite properly; I am not arguing about that. The point that I am making is that it is nonsense to suggest that Scotland is not represented on the Committees.

Mr. Kirkwood

Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be more prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he were willing to serve on the Scottish Select Committee, which patently he is not.

The point that I am trying to argue may be above the hon. Gentleman's head; if we are consistently to be denied a Scottish Select Committee—perhaps into the next Parliament—because the Government claim that there are difficulties and are not using their best offices to produce such a Committee, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a duty and a moral responsibility to examine carefully the balance of Scots Members on the existing departmental Select Committees. If he is not prepared to do that, he has a duty to ensure that the Government do the proper thing and come forward with English members. I was surprised recently to discover that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs now does not have an in-built Government majority. It is operating in a way that we were told could never happen in Scotland. If it is good enough for the Welsh, why is it not good enough for the Scots in terms of the Committee's composition?

The Government and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection have not properly addressed a whole series of issues. The purpose of this debate and of our amendment, which may have been incompetent and technical, is to flush out those issues. We shall return to the matter again. We are too responsible to hold up the work of these two important departmental Select Committees for very much longer, but we will return to the issue in other ways until we get what we need—a proper Select Committee to deal with Scottish affairs.

11 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)

It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to support the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). As the House knows, the Standing Order amendments to establish separate Select Committees related to the Department of Health and to the Department of Social Security with effect from the start of this Session were agreed by the House on 19 October. The motions to set up those Select Committees were agreed by the House on that occasion without debate.

The motions in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley are the next stage in the sequence of events required to bring those Committees into operation. The motion that was passed on 19 October, which was accepted by the House without debate and without objection, created the framework, and the motions tonight, if passed, provide the members to carry out that important work.

I want now to refer to the justification for the motion before the House. The creation of the two Select Committees is a logical and desirable consequence of the division in the summer of 1988 of the former Department of Health and Social Security into two separate Departments. I want to emphasise the importance of the two Committees. The Department of Health and the Department of Social Security account for 50 per cent. of public expenditure. Select Committees are set up to examine, among other things, the application of public expenditure. It is a very important role of the House to scrutinise public expenditure.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

What about Scotland?

Mr. MacGregor

I am coming to that.

We are tallking about 50 per cent. off public expenditure. As a member of the Government, I believe that it is important that a Department's work is subject to the oversight and accountability of Parliament that underlies the Select Committee system. That is the key and only issue before the House tonight.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am delighted that these motions have finally appeared before the House. Ever since the departmental split took place, the Liaison Committee has argued that the Select Committee concerned should also be divided, not least for the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave in his opening remarks.

None the less, there has been a very long delay—from when the Department was split until the present date—and as a result, scrutiny has not been as effective as it might have been. Will my right hon. Friend state categorically that, in future, if there is any change in departmental structure, there will be a corresponding change in the Select Committee system, allowing the Committees to complete their existing inquiries, so that there will not be the kind of delay that we have experienced on this occasion?

Mr. MacGregor

I obviously cannot bind all future Governments and Leaders of the House, but my right hon. Friend has made a good point from a position of great responsibility in relation to Select Committees. He also makes a good point about the delay that has occurred, not only from his point of view, but from that of the Procedure Committee.

The amendment to Standing Orders to establish the two new Committees was approved a week before publication of the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system. It is important to note that the Committee endorsed the idea, as my right hon. Friend has, of having two Committees to reflect the departmental structures. That is the germane point that we are debating tonight. It is an important point in relation to those two Departments, which account for such a large part of public expenditure.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

Surely one is interested in the whole proceedings of the House. However, may I remind hon. Members what the Procedure Committee recommended? It stated that there should be no break in continuity of the Select Committee system as a result of the decision. Accordingly, we recommended that the necessary motion should be framed in such a way that the nomination of the two Committees immediately follows the abolition of the Social Services Committee. We recommended that that should be done in time for the two Committees to be in place and functioning at the start of the Session. Whatever may be said about a Scottish Grand Committee and a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, two wrongs will not make a right.

Mr. MacGregor

My hon. Friend has made—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. MacGregor

It is right that I should respond to ray hon. Friend in his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to which I have just referred. My hon. Friend has raised that point before, and I have told him that I agree with him. I am sure that it was raised in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). I said then that, if the formation of the two Committees continued to be frustrated in such a way, I would provide time for a debate at the earliest opportunity.

That is what I have done. That is why we are here tonight. I am fulfilling the commitment that I gave then. I am responding to the Chairman of the Liaison Commit tee and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I should have thought that the whole House would expect to have Select Committees to examine two such major aspects of public expenditure. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will also support that view; it will be interesting if they do not support the formation of two such important Committees.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

The Leader of the House quite rightly referred to accountability for public expenditure. Does he therefore accept that health and social security .are two major aspects of expenditure within Scotland, and that we too should have the right to scrutinise that aspect of the functions of the Scottish Office?

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned drawing up Standing Orders to ensure that Select Committees on health and social services are established, but how can he reconcile that with Standing Order No. 130, which committed the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. MacGregor

Let me deal with some of those points. They enable me almost to say all that I wanted to say, as I promised to make a brief intervention. First, as the hon. Lady knows, social security is a United Kingdom matter. In fact, the Select Committee on Social Security will examine the position in Scotland as well. We are seeing, in effect, the deprivation of these matters being considered by a Select Committee in relation to Scotland as well as elsewhere.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. MacGregor

May I finish my reply to the hon. Lady?

Secondly, we are debating the two other matters, not a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

We should be.

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) says that we should be. The motion is about the setting up of the two Select Committees. It is misguided—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. MacGregor

May I finish my sentence? It is misguided and irrelevant to attack the setting up of these two Committees on the basis of the difficulties of setting up another Select Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce

It is exactly on the point of the composition of the Committee and the specific motion that the debate is moving into a matter of specific concern. It is ironic that the Health Committee, which deals exclusively with England and Wales, has one Scottish Member, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). The Social Security Committee, which deals with the United Kingdom, has no Scottish Member. If there is so much concern about Scottish issues, how could the Committee of Selection put forward names that included not one Scottish hon. Member? That means that the motion is wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. MacGregor

That is hardly a matter for me. I think it would be regarded as rather strange if the Leader of the House were to dominate the way in which the membership of Select Committees was decided. However, it is a matter for me to ensure that we move ahead with the formation of these two committees. It seems to me that the approach of hon. Members who are objecting to this is that, if one issue which is full of difficulties cannot be resolved, then another issue—namely, the two Committees that we are trying to set up tonight—which is wholly unconnected and involves no difficulties, cannot be resolved either. I think that is misguided, irrlevant and rather petty-minded. It is neither liberal or democratic. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been raising this matter, but I do not think it is either a liberal or democratic way to approach it.

I do not want to be drawn into the issues about the Scottish Select Committee tonight, because it is irrelevant to the debate, and the amendment has not been chosen. Therefore, it is out of order.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor

No, I will not give way now, because I think it is time that we came to a conclusion on this matter. It really does not make sense, nor is it in the interests of this House to prevent the setting up of two select committees covering so much of public expenditure because of difficulties with another committee.

I would point out to the House that other departmental Select Committees that have been set up can take and have taken evidence from Scottish Departments on Scottish matters as part of inquiries relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1989, the Scottish Office provided evidence in 11 different Select Committee inquiries, and in 1988 it provided evidence in 13 out of 23 Select Committee inquiries. If the amendment were allowed to be voted on and were carried, the House would be effectively deprived of the opportunity to have Select Committees on this major area of public expenditure—not least, in Scotland itself. These two Committees should be formed as soon as possible, so that they can begin their work in these very important areas.

I note that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he would not continue his opposition for much longer. I hope that he will not carry it beyond tonight, and that the House will vote in favour of setting up the membership of these Committees.

11.13 pm
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

I begin with what has been agreed. At least the history of this matter is agreed. The old Department of Health and Social Security was divided in 1988. On 19 October 1990, the House approved without a Division a motion that, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 130 should be amended in order to establish separate Select Committees for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Today we are considering the motions from the Committee of Selection to establish the membership of the two Committees. At least that much is agreed. All this has been agreed without any major differences of opinion across the Floor of the House.

At the outset, I point out that the Opposition have no objection in principle to the Committees being established. We support the proposals. I hesitate to intrude in Scottish affairs, not least because my hon. Friends from north of the border are well capable of looking after themselves.

As we are discussing the matter, and debating with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection the establishment of Select Committees, the House has a rare opportunity to look at the way in which that Committee, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) as its Chairman, discharge their duties.

The House has a duty to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That is not an option or something that the House can take or leave. That duty remains unfulfilled and the Leader of the House, like his predecessor, and the Chairman are in clear and continued breach of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in failing to complete the procedures for the establishment of such a Committee.

Mr. Higgins

The hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts the motions. Will he make it clear that he also accepts the principle underlying them, which is that, if a departmental structure changes, the Select Committee should change correspondingly? This is an all-party matter and it is important that, on such points of principle, we have agreement across the Floor of the House.

Dr. Cunningham

I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that we accepted the principle and we support the proposals.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

As the Labour party has accepted the principle that there should be Select Committees, will the hon. Gentleman recall that, although expenditure in Scotland has not been properly scrutinised for four years, expenditure in Northern Ireland has not been properly scrutinised for just short of 19 years? Is not that a scandal?

Dr. Cunningham

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House has a duty to establish a Select Committee to consider that subject, in which he has a natural interest, that is an important point.

We are well past the midpoint of this Parliament, and the situation remains unsatisfactory. There is no precedent, under any Government of any party, for the Committee of Selection and the Leader of the House failing to establish a Select Committee in such circumstances. The matter has been pressed again and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), other Scottish colleagues and hon. Members in other political parties.

I was rather amused to hear the Chairman of the Procedure Committee make a plea for no break in continuity in the scrutiny of the Departments of Health and of Social Security. It is a bit of a joke for him to say that, when he has been silent about the three-year break in continuity in the scrutiny of public expenditure in Scotland. The Leader of the House has said, and I agree, that the principal object of the establishment of Select Committees is to scrutinise public expenditure, but what about Scotland? What about the £10 billion annual expenditure by the Scottish Office? Why is that not being scrutinised?

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He said that the Procedure Committee recommended that two Committees should be established when the Select Committee on Health and Social Services was done away with, but has made no recommendation about Scotland. As he knows, that is untrue. Paragraphs 270 and 271 of that report stress the need for there to be reconsideration of the appointment of a Scottish Grand Committee. Let us get the balance right.

Dr. Cunningham

The hon. Gentleman is getting confused between Grand Committees and Select Committees, and about what I said. I did not accuse the Committee of not making that recommendation. I drew attention to its stressing of the importance of continuity in the work of Select Committees. If that is a valid argument in respect of the Departments of Health and of Social Security, it is an equally valid argument in respect of Scottish affairs.

It is very difficult to find the culprit when discussing all this and seeking advice with the Clerks. Reading the Standing Orders of the House, it seems that one is passed around in a circle between the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip and, to a much lesser extent, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. They all have one thing in common: they are all members of the governing Tory party. What we have here, and continue to see, is the continual passing of the buck from the Front Bench to the Back Benches to the Government Whips Office—and round and round it goes.

The reality is that this Government, for political reasons and for no other purpose, are failing in their duty to the House. If the hon. Member for Shipley really thought a lot about his own position and his duty to the House, he would resign. I do not say this in any personal sense. I have a certain fondness for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, in personal terms, but he and his Committee have failed totally to carry out their duties under the Standing Orders of the House. That is what they are appointed to do and have failed lamentably to do for almost four years.

I said that I hesitated to get involved in these affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) fondly refers to Geordies as Scots with their brains bashed out. My response was that in some cases it would not be a very long job.

Sir Marcus Fox

As the hon. Member suggests I might resign—and quotes Standing Order 130 as his justification —could I refer him to column 339 of Hansard of 20 December 1988, in which the previous Leader of the House gives the exact ruling as to why there is no compulsion on my Committee to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? There are ways in which that Standing Order can be dealt with, and the explanation is to be found there.

Dr. Cunningham

That illustrates my point. The hon. Gentleman says it is not the responsibility of his Committee; the Leader of the House says it is not his responsibility. What is the purpose of the House having a Standing Order which no one will accept the responsibility for implementing? That is the reality. Although we have no opposition to the proposals that are before the House from the Committee of Selection, we take the gravest exception to the failure of the Government, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and the governing party to match up to their duty under the Standing Orders of the House.

11.23 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

We should be clear as to the terms we use in this debate. I get slightly concerned when the Chairman of the Committee of Procedure appears to be unable to differentiate between the Scottish Grand Committee, which exists, and the Scottish Select Committee, which has a totally different role. I understand that it is very easy to make slips of the tongue, and so long as it is a slip I shall accept it. But it is clear that what we are discussing is Select Committees on departmental issues. Such committees have the responsibility not just of examining public expenditure, not just of interrogating, investigating or questioning Ministers, but of overseeing many subsidiary agencies, and indeed they are entitled to discuss any issues on the subject matter before them.

What is before us, strictly, is the naming of Members to serve on the two Select Committees. We are entitled to question the priority of the motions before us, especially since a great deal of heat has been generated about this subject. When an hon. Member complained about the delay in setting up these two Committees, the Leader of the House became extremely agitated. I have not seen him so acerbic in his role as Leader of the House since he reached that office. I have never seen him so excited. But he was excited over what? It was over the fact that since October last year we have been waiting for the establishment of these two Committees.

What does the right hon. Gentleman think Opposition Members feel about the Scottish Select Committee? Three years have passed, and nothing has been done. The Leader of the House has said, "It is difficult; it is hard to know what to do." Different methods have been adopted and all sorts of excuses have been trotted out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the matter has been referred to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee, the Government Chief Whip and back again to the Leader of the House. We know, of course, that these individuals and Committees are faced with tremendous responsibilities.

Paragraph 271 of the report of the Procedure Committee puts the matter in a nutshell. It states: Moreover, the absence of a Scottish Affairs Committee leaves a major Government Department unscrutinised and thus constitutes a deficiency (some would consider a serious deficiency) in the departmentally-related Committee system. In the face of that, it is no use anyone on either side of the House arguing that the affairs of the Scottish Office or Scottish departmentally related divisions can be adequately covered by other Committees. If that were not so, the Procedure Committee would not have made its tremendously strong recommendation. Nor would it have gone on to ascribe blame. It makes it clear that an insufficient number of Conservative Members who represent Scottish constituencies are willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It agrees with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee that the cause of the problem is political and so must be its solution. It adds: The House is entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution, which may require compromise on all sides. We have sought in many ways to achieve a compromise. I understand those who say, "Let us get on with what already exists. Let us get on with major issues of health and social security." There are health issues in Scotland which have been dealt with in a way that beggars the imagination. For example, it has not been possible to examine Grampian health board's decision to hand over the running of a hospital for geriatric patients—it was built by the board and paid for by the Scottish Office—to a private medical company. Whether that was the right decision—I happen to think it was not—it has been taken. It has been mirrored by decisions of the other boards, and such decisions need to be examined.

Trust status is being considered for some major hospitals in the national health service. Arguments in favour of that status are being advanced in a way that has led to a fog of confusion. Decisions on whether to apply for trust status are being made on inadequate information about finance. The chairman of the unit medical committee of the Foresterhill site he said that, if it is decided to remain within a direct management unit service, an essential £11.7 million will not be made available. If it is decided to opt for trust status, however, a magic formula will be implemented and the money will become available. It seems that it will be possible to borrow the money. It must be important that those who make the decisions know precisely what is involved.

If the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated these matters, decisions would be made on the basis of what is best for the patient. It is that which we are being denied. It is no good the Leader of the House and Conservative Back-Bench Members becoming agitated when decisions on the health service in England and Wales, and partially in Scotland, are being delayed. I accept that some issues may have to be looked into, but must we meekly accept the situation?

I have only one quarrel with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who opened for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman says that he has no desire to thwart the setting up of these Committees. I do not want to do that either. However, if there is no other way to make Government Members aware of the serious deficiencies that we have tolerated for the past three and a half years, we shall thwart them to the very last moment.

11.31 pm
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I shall be very brief. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I must appeal to the House not to make three errors instead of one. There cannot be any hon. Member who does not accept that there is a need for a Select Committee to look after the affairs of the Department of Health.

Mr. Robert Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is a director of a company called Care Services Group. If my recollection is faulty, I shall certainly apologise, but I understand that that company has taken over the contract to provide geriatric services in Aberdeen. Is that so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's membership will be recorded in the Register of Interests. Hon. Members might take this issue up during the debate, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Peter Emery

There cannot be any hon. Member who does not believe that there ought to be a Select Committee to deal with health matters, and one to deal with matters relating to social security. However, we should be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if, because there is not a Scottish Grand Committee—[Interruption.] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Social Services Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "A Scottish Select Committee."] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Select Committee, we should decide not to appoint Select Committees to deal with health matters and matters relating to social security. The Procedure Committee tried hard to ensure that this error would not occur. To that end, it recommended dovetailing in order that work might continue without interruption.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has made it absolutely clear that nobody could accuse the Procedure Committee of not taking extremely seriously the question of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. We have made it quite clear that this is a gap in the system of Department-related Select Committees. I should like to refer to the recommendations that the Procedure Committee made. We stated quite clearly that, in respect of this matter, the power of initiation must lie with the Government. Hon. Members are entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution.

Some of the problems that existed when we were taking evidence for our report have been overcome or simply no longer exist. I think that I should be going a very long way towards having the wishes of the House fulfilled if I could persuade the Leader of the House to say yet again that he will look into the matter and discuss it with the parties to see whether a solution might be found.

The arguments against the appointment of the two Committees are based upon a desire to have a Scottish Grand Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Select Committee."]—yes, I am sorry but that desire is not part of today's debate.

If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could assure the House that he will reconsider the matter, that would go a long way towards getting something done.

11.34 pm
Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

I speak as the last Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—the way things are going, I shall make the "Guinness Book of Records" as just that.

I am glad to see the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) present tonight. They are previous members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and I trained them to speak up for Scotland.

I have a great respect for the Leader of the House, because he comes from the small mining village of Shotts. On this occasion, I am afraid that he is not speaking up for that village: he is speaking for the Tory Government, who have power only in England, not in Scotland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he belongs to the small village of Shotts in Lanarkshire. He should speak up for Scotland and set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

All Select Committees monitor the work of Ministers and Departments. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs monitored the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. As Chairman of that Committee, I can confirm that we worked closely with the previous Secretary—

Mr. David Marshall

My hon. Friend worked hand in hand with him.

Mr. Lambie

I am afraid that I must agree with my hon. Friend. The Committee worked hand in hand with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I saw that right hon. Gentleman earlier behind the Chair, but when he saw what was happening, he beat a hasty retreat.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs worked well, because it not only monitored the work of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, but gave the Secretary of State the ammunition and evidence he needed to produce before Cabinet Sub-Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. All this is a long way from the motion before the House.

Mr. Lambie

I am trying to show the importance of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Surely that is relevant to the debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes

I was the Chairman of that Select Committee before my hon. Friend. Does he agree that every recommendation it made was accepted by the Government?

Mr. Lambie

I agree. I followed in the tradition of my hon. Friend. I was there to co-operate. Although we had a majority of Labour Members of Parliament representing and a Conservative Secretary of State. We had to co-operate with him to get the best possible deal for Scotland, and we did just that. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ayr for working with us, sometimes against his friends in the Conservative party who served on that Select Committee. We worked on the basis that what was good for Scotland was good for the Select Committee.

This is where what I am saying becomes relevant, because we are talking about an existing Select Committee being divided into two Select Committees. When we discussed the future of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I suggested to the Government, as I suggest to the Leader of the House tonight, that, with 13 Members, it was too big. During a public sitting, every Member of Parliament wanted to speak because the press were present.[Interruption.] A Minister who came before the Select Committee got off easily, because—

Mr. David Marshall

My hon. Friend protected him.

Mr. Lambie

I might have protected the Secretary of State for Scotland because, like me, he was speaking for the future of Scotland and Scottish interests. Sometimes, Tory Secretaries of State for Scotland are the best supporters of Labour party policy that we can get in the House.[Laughter.]

I used to point out to the Select Committee that, if all 13 Members wanted to question and argue with a Minister who was to appear before us, and that Minister had ability, as the right hon. Member for Ayr had, it was like coming to a holiday camp. It was no problem and there was no investigation. Whenever we had difficulty forming a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I recommended, against the advice of my Front Bench, that instead of 13 Members, the Select Committee should be composed of five—three Conservative and two Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Question before the House concerns the composition and appointment of Members to two Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from that.

Mr. Lambie

I am drawing on my experience to show the two new Select Committees that are about to be set up that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was too big. I am suggesting that they too may be too big. With five Members, as I recommended, we could have had discussions, and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) could have joined the Committee and spoken up for Scotland.

I again suggest to the Leader of the House that, if we cannot form a Committee of 13, we should form a Committee of five. I am willing, again, to act as its Chairman.

11.43 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I appreciate being called, especially in the light of the previous contribution. I remind the House that there are parties other than the Conservative and Labour parties. It may be that they could work out a cosy club.

I speak in favour of the motions before the House. The Committees have been far too long in being set up. I represent part of the kingdom which has a different health service and I realise that we have our difficulties. In a few weeks' time, a health order will come before the House which will not be properly scrutinised. There is no way presently in which a Select Committee in Northern Ireland can do the work of this House.

I have every sympathy with my Scottish colleagues. That will come as no surprise: Scotland is the land of the Scoti—the Irish, and I speak as an Ulster Scot. I feel, however, that a little local difficulty has got out of proportion. Two large Committees covering two responsible areas of government should have been in operation two months ago; moreover, four years have gone by with no Scottish Select Committee. I trust that the complaints about that will reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you represent the interests of Back Benchers, and that the Leader of the House—who is concerned with the conduct of the House's business—will bear in mind the fact that a large Government Department has not been scrutinised for 19 years. The time is long past when Departments were scrutinised by Select Committees.

I have no intention of delaying the House. I simply support the motions and plead with the House, as a democratic forum, to abide by its conscience and give the people of Northern Ireland their proper rights.

11.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

Earlier, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Amery), Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, said that the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs constituted a noticeable gap. It is not only a noticeable gap, but an unacceptable and very undemocratic one. We have experienced nearly four years of camouflage, obfuscation and different arguments from the Government about why they cannot set up the Scottish Select Committee, which is essential if we are to scrutinise what happens in our nation.

The purpose of the motions is to establish two Select Committees. I strongly support the presence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the Select Committee for Health—not least because of his inestimable work on behalf of the disabled, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—but I am sure that he will agree that more Scottish Members should serve on the Committee. Moreover, no Scottish Member has been appointed to the Select Committee on Social Security.

Conservative Members have made it plain that they consider the arrangements appropriate; Opposition Members greet that view in a spirit of argumentative disagreement. You may have been surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the vehemence of the Opposition's arguments. They reflect our strong sense of indignity, following the denial of Scotland's right to take her proper part in the scrutiny of legislation.

It has been pointed out that Select Committees will take evidence from Scottish Office Ministers. The Government recognise that we can offer a certain expertise in health and social security matters, and also that our administrative set-up is very different. Let me tell them that we find it extremely insulting when people pose as one-day experts on the problems that we face in Scotland. Geographical differences exist in regard to health: in the highlands and islands, for instance, the distances involved in ensuring that our constituents have access to good health facilities mean extra expenditure.

Many English Members of Parliament say that too much money is spent on Scotland's health service. They ought instead to work for an improvement in the facilities offered by the national health service to all people in the United Kingdom. Moreover, they take no account of the fact that Scottish universities make an important contribution to the NHS by training doctors who practise not only in Scottish hospitals but in hospitals throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world. That, however, is treated as purely Scottish expenditure.

No account is taken of Scotland's contribution to health service research. Reference was made earlier to the work that has been done in Scotland to help AIDS sufferers. I think in particular of the work done by Professor Jarrett at Glasgow university. Unfortunately, Edinburgh has become the AIDS capital of Europe. We need to do more research into AIDS, but the money for it has not been provided. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the privatisation of the national health service, not least within the area of the Grampian health board.

No real attention has been paid to the need for extra heating payments to be made during severe weather conditions to people in the north and north-east of Scotland. Our climate and weather should lead to higher automatic payments being made. Scotland also suffers from higher levels of unemployment than England. That deserves scrutiny, too. The failure to appoint Scottish Members to serve on the social security Select Committee is very aggravating to the people of Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the House will reconsider that point.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 January J], to put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to Health.

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 33.

Division No. 41] [11.51 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Cope, Rt Hon John
Arnold, Sir Thomas Couchman, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Cran, James
Beggs, Roy Cunningham, Dr John
Benton, Joseph Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bright, Graham Day, Stephen
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Devlin, Tim
Browne, John (Winchester) Dixon, Don
Burt, Alistair Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James.
Butler, Chris Dover, Den
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Emery, Sir Peter
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Evans, John (St Helens N)
Carrington, Matthew Evennett, David
Carttiss, Michael Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Fallon, Michael
Chope, Christopher Favell, Tony
Conway, Derek Fenner, Dame Peggy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Flynn, Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Nicholls, Patrick
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Forth, Eric Norris, Steve
Foster, Derek O'Hara, Edward
Fox, Sir Marcus Oppenheim, Phillip
Franks, Cecil Page, Richard
Freeman, Roger Paice, James
Golding, Mrs Llin Patnick, Irvine
Goodlad, Alastair Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Gorst, John Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Porter, David (Waveney)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hague, William Price, Sir David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Raffan, Keith
Hanley, Jeremy Rathbone, Tim
Hannam, John Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Harris, David Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Hawkins, Christopher Ryder, Richard
Hayes, Jerry Sackville, Hon Tom
Haynes, Frank Sayeed, Jonathan
Hay ward, Robert Shaw, David (Dover)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Hind, Kenneth Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Sims, Roger
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Hunter, Andrew Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Irvine, Michael Stern, Michael
Jack, Michael Stevens, Lewis
Janman, Tim Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Summerson, Hugo
Kirkhope, Timothy Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Knapman, Roger Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Knowles, Michael Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Lawrence, Ivan Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Thurnham, Peter
Lilley, Peter Trimble, David
Lord, Michael Trotter, Neville
Loyden, Eddie Twinn, Dr Ian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
McAvoy, Thomas Walden, George
McCartney, Ian Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Walker, Bill (T'side North)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Waller, Gary
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Maclean, David Wareing, Robert N.
McLoughlin, Patrick Watts, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice Wells, Bowen
Mans, Keith Wheeler, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Widdecombe, Ann
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) Wilkinson, John
Maude, Hon Francis Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Winterton, Nicholas
Michael, Alun Wise, Mrs Audrey
Miller, Sir Hal Wood, Timothy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Yeo, Tim
Monro, Sir Hector Younger, Rt Hon George
Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Moss, Malcolm Tellers for the Ayes:
Moynihan, Hon Colin Mr. Sydney Chapman and
Neale, Sir Gerrard Mr. Tim Boswell.
Neubert, Sir Michael
NOES
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.) McAllion, John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) McKelvey, William
Beith, A. J. McMaster, Gordon
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Meale, Alan
Cryer, Bob Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Dalyell, Tam Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Dunnachie, Jimmy Salmond, Alex
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Skinner, Dennis
Fyfe, Maria Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Godman, Dr Norman A. Wallace, James
Graham, Thomas Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Howells, Geraint Wilson, Brian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Tellers for the Noes:
Johnston, Sir Russell Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Kennedy, Charles Mr. Malcolm Bruce.
Lambie, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Browne, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Porter and Mr. David Shaw be members of the Social Security Committee.

Resolved, That Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Hinchcliffe, Alice Mahon, Sir David Price, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Back to